Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

10749Re: [GTh] Dehandschutter Article Commentary

Expand Messages
  • Mike Grondin
    Dec 7, 2013
      It's rare that one finds a factual error in a published article, even more rare
      when it occurs in the course of an argument with the conclusion of which one
      disagrees. Fortunately, I said in advance of my checking that Dehandschutter
      had raised a "valid consideration," because now I can't be accused of incon-
      sistency in claiming it to be a valid consideration in favor of XRHSTOS ('kind').
      Since that word is associated with XRAOMAI, it reflects back on XRW and
      XRHMA in Th63, which are also associated with XRAOMAI. On the other hand,
      XRHSTHS ('creditor') is related to XRAW, a verb that has much the same meaning
      ('to lend, etc'), and does not relate back to Th63 in that way. I have no idea how
      Dehandschutter could have made this mistake, but obviously this one point that he
      counted in favor of 'creditor' actually works against it, and in favor of 'kind' in Th65.
      Rather a big deal, if I do say so myself. (I don't, however, have any expectation of
      being so lucky with other arguments for XRHSTHS.)
       
      M. Grondin
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic